Hawke wrote:


I have a least seen the book in person, picked it up, looked at it and
read some of it. I got enough from it to understand what it is about.
The title should tell you that.
Judging a book by it's cover?

No. Not judging by it's cover. Judging by the title. They're not the
same. What's Moby Dick about? Titles tell you what the book is about.
Really? What's "Ordinary and Armorial" all about?


You don't understand what senator for
sale means? If I wrote a book Judge for Sale, or Cop for Sale, wouldn't
you know what they would be about?
No,like you I would suspect I knew, but until I read it, I (unlike
you) wouldn't KNOW what it said.

Then you are not very smart. If you can't understand what a book is
about from its title then you are in real trouble. If I saw a book with
the title the Life of Muhammad Ali I wouldn't have to read it to know
what it was about. Apparently you wouldn't.
Once again your supposed great ability to evaluate evidence rises to
the front.
What's "Physical Chess" all about? What is "The Apostle" about.
See, A title doesn't always tell you ANYTHING.
Is "De Re Metallica" all about the Band? or is it something else?

But then you expect people not to treat you like you're an idiot?

To me Senator for sale almost sounds redundant.

Why is that? Have you ever heard of a senator using his office to make
himself rich? How about Bob Dole? I have. Many times over the decades.
He was a poster boy for making money by being a senator.
Reading comprehension let you down again?


In fact the title merely imply's he was for sale, NOT that he was
bought and paid for.

Right, and when you drive down the street and see a car parked there
with a sign on it that says "for sale" that doesn't mean that car is for
sale. Is that right? It implies it but doesn't mean it's really for
sale.
Bad analogy,
YOUR position is akin to seeing the for sale sign, and saying "the car
HAS BEEN sold".


It would be a good thing if that was always the case. I would
advocate for requiring any one holding public office, to leave public
office before running for public office. [Yes even re-election, if you
are REALLY worth re-electing you should be able to win on write-ins]]


I don't see what good that would do. The incumbent would still win
almost all the time just like they do now.
How do you figure that? (And technically, before George jumps in, he
would no longer be an incumbent anyway)
Not running means NO ads, No campaign, no speeches, no contributions,
nada, null zip. Not in a primary, not in a general.
jk